Thursday, August 03, 2006

Questions

It seems to me that the MSM is about as accurate and incisive in its critiques of this blog as it is in reporting the news.

It starts with the AP "rebuttal" which homes in on the "date stamp" issue, but addresses none of the other points raised and then, curiously, does not actually say that the timing attributed to the photographs were wrong.

Several readers have written to me, however, saying look at the shadows, some offering their own analyses, which are very plausible. If you look particularly at the "Green Helmet" sequences which I have posted, there definitely seem to be indications that the shows are longer on some shots than others, suggesting a longer time-frame than the context would indicate.

The photographs are up and posted for all to see and from which to draw their own conclusions. You do not want any more gruesome pictures from me, so I have posted a picture of one of those vile, blood-thirsty Israeli soldiers that so many have written to tell me about.

As to the MSM, second into the fray was Roy Greenslade of The Guardian, who plays the typical left-wing trick of dismissing me as a "right winger" and there fore not worth listening to. He also puts us down as "churning out anti-EU rants", which means he cannot have read this sequence. But then, stereotyping is so much easier when you ignore the facts.

And into that frame comes Jefferson Morely at the Washington Post, who rushes to brand me as a conspiracy theorist, that being his comfort blanket which allows him to ignore the central message of the sequence of posts we have been running.

Morely's great claim to fame is that I have branded "Green Helmet" as a Hezbollah official, without a shred of evidence, going only on "gut instinct". What Morely does not want to address though is that this man is clearly more than a "rescue workers" which the media so decorously brand him. He behaviour on site, and the reaction of others to him – as well as the media – clearly demonstrate him to be in a position of authority. Yet none of the British or US media want to name him, or describe his function. Why is that I wonder.

Perhaps, Morely, like many of his colleagues, don't want to admit that there is plenty of evidence (see here and here) that Hezbollah actually control media access and proceedings at disaster sites in Lebanon. If they did, in the context of "Green Helmet" being demonstrably "in charge" at the Qana site, the likes of Morely might have to admit that my "gut feeling" was not too wide of the mark.

But the real issue that Morely avoids is that my postings are primarily directed at the conduct of the media. He writes that North says he is just trying to "raise questions", which he kindly agrees is "certainly a legitimate goal". But he doesn't answer any of mine. Instead, he asks his own: "What is it about the photos from Qana that made Israel's supporters prefer fantasy to fact?"

Well, Mr Morely, in return, another question. "What is it about the photos from Qana that make you so confident – apparently – that they were all an absolutely genuine record of the events during the rescue efforts?"

It is unlikely, however, that Mr Morely will answer my question. In truth, he and the others are not really interested in an obscure blog written in a back street of Bradford. What really worries him is Rush Limbaugh and all the other "right wing" sites that have really put this issue on the map.

So, until we get some answers, we will continue what we have been doing… asking questions.